Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centered on whether the employer wrongfully refused to reassign a pregnant paramedic to suitable duties under occupational health and safety laws.

• The Tribunal administratif du travail ruled the refusal was unjustified and constituted a prohibited measure under section 227 of the LSST.

• The Ville de Québec sought judicial review, arguing its decision was reasonable given the employee’s work restrictions and operational constraints.

• The Superior Court upheld the tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the employer’s duty to proactively explore accommodation options.

• The Court of Appeal focused on whether the tribunal’s decision was reasonable and consistent with the evidence and legislative intent.

• The appeal was dismissed, affirming broad protection for pregnant workers and the tribunal’s role in enforcing those rights.

Facts and background

Catherine Ouellet, a paramedic employed by the Ville de Québec, became pregnant in 2019 and provided a medical certificate indicating she could not perform night shifts or lift heavy patients. She requested reassignment to safe duties under Quebec’s Act respecting occupational health and safety (LSST). The employer declined to reassign her, citing a lack of available work that met both her restrictions and operational needs. As a result, she had to rely on income replacement through the CNESST preventive withdrawal program.

Ouellet filed a complaint under section 227 of the LSST, alleging the employer's refusal amounted to a discriminatory or punitive measure. The Tribunal administratif du travail ruled in her favor, concluding the employer had not fulfilled its legal duty to accommodate and should have made a more serious effort to find her suitable work. The employer sought judicial review in Superior Court, which upheld the tribunal’s ruling.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

The Ville de Québec appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, arguing that the tribunal’s decision was unreasonable. It claimed that the tribunal had substituted its own view for that of the employer and failed to give proper weight to operational realities and the employee’s significant restrictions. The city also argued that the tribunal had improperly extended the scope of the employer’s duty under the LSST.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. It applied the standard of reasonableness under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, and concluded that the tribunal had properly considered the legislative objectives of protecting pregnant workers and ensuring that preventive withdrawal is a last resort. The court found that the tribunal’s reasoning was coherent, rooted in the evidence, and sensitive to the statutory context.

Key findings and interpretation

The Court emphasized that under the LSST, employers must not only refrain from penalizing pregnant workers but must actively seek to reassign them to safe tasks when possible. The tribunal had found that the Ville de Québec made little to no effort to explore alternative scheduling or modified duties that could have allowed Ouellet to continue working safely. This lack of initiative supported the finding of a prohibited measure under section 227.

The tribunal’s conclusion that the employer failed in its duty to accommodate was supported by the factual record, including testimony about unexamined options for day shifts or lighter duties. The court noted that even in operationally demanding sectors like emergency services, this duty remains intact and must be meaningfully pursued.

Conclusion and outcome

The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal administratif du travail’s decision. It affirmed that employers are expected to go beyond a passive assessment of available tasks and must actively explore reasonable accommodation for pregnant employees. The ruling reinforces strong protections under Quebec’s occupational health and safety regime and confirms the tribunal’s central role in enforcing them. The Ville de Québec was ordered to pay legal costs.